State v. Lancaster’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
114 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 114 later decisions — most recently March 2024 · most notably State v. Awan (1986), State v. Williams (1977)
114 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Massiah v. United States · Douglas v. Alabama · Henry v. State of Mississippi · Walder v. United States
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 114 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'[p]rior identification of the accused may be shown by the testimony of the identifier, or by the testimony of a third person to whom or in whose presence the identification was made, where the identifier has testified and is available for cross-examination, not as original, independent or substantive proof of the identity of the accused as a guilty party, but as corroboration of the testimony of the identifying witness as to the identity of the accused'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“an appellate court will not consider any error which counsel for a party complaining of the trial court's judgment could have called but did not call to the trial court's attention at a time when such error could have been avoided or corrected by the trial court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In re M.T.“[c]onstitutional rights may be lost as finally as any others by a failure to assert them at the proper time.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In re M.T.
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.